Claudine - page 11

FACTS: Petitioner signed a promissory note with two others holding themselves jointly and severally liable to respondent bank. When petitioner and another obligor failed to respond to respondent bank’s demand for payment, an action for collection of money was filed against all three promisors. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was a guarantor. HELD: NO. Petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states: Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/We, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner-appellee presented for payment four promissory notes for different amounts totaling P21,000. The administrator-appellant manifested willingness to pay but later called attention to the fact that the notes contained no express promise to pay a specified amount. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the notes amounted to a promise to pay the amounts indicated thereon. HELD: YES. An acknowledgment may become a promise by the addition of words by which a promise of payment is naturally implied, such as, “payable,” “payable” on a given day, “payable on demand,” “paid… when called for.” To constitute a good promissory note, no precise words…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Defendant obtained a credit accommodation from plaintiff-bank to facilitate the payment of the printing of his periodical. As required by the bank, he executed a trust receipt in favor of said bank wherein he undertook to hold in trust for the plaintiff the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to turn over to the plaintiff the proceeds of the sale to answer for the payment of all obligations arising from the drafts which were drawn by the printer against the bank and later sent to the defendant for acceptance. ISSUE(S): Whether or not defendant in signing…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A treasury warrant was issued in favor of Placido Urbanes in his capacity as disbursing officer of the Food Administration. He later indorsed it to petitioner, Benjamin Abubakar, a private citizen. The Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of said treasury warrant. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the subject treasury warrant is a negotiable instrument. HELD: NO. This treasury warrant is not within the scope of the negotiable instrument law. The document bearing on its face the words “payable from the appropriation for food administration,” is actually an order for payment out of “a particular fund,” and is not…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner made a money market placement with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) for which he was issued, among others, a Certificate of Sale of one Delta Motors Corporation (Delta) promissory note with Philfinace as “payee” and Delta as “maker,” and on the face of the said note was stamped “NON-NEGOTIABLE.” Despite repeated demand, petitioner failed to collect his investment and interest thereon. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a non-negotiable is capable of assignment or transfer. HELD: YES. A non-negotiable instrument may not be negotiated, but it may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent entered into a contract of sale over a parcel of land to be paid within four (4) years from execution of the contract. The contract included stipulations for cancellation, forfeiture of previous payments, and reconveyance of the land in question in case the private respondent would fail to complete payment within the said period. Upon the denial of its requests to pay in three installments when the period of payment had expired, private respondent proffered a personal check which petitioner refused to accept. ISSUE(S): Whether or not there was a tender of payment. HELD: NO.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 16 February 1935, Dr. Jose Eduque secured two loans from Mariano Ocampo de Leon, Dona Escolastica delos Reyes and defendant-appellant, with amounts of P40,000 and P15,000, both payable within 20 years with interest of 5% per annum. Payment of the loans was guaranteed by mortgage on real property. On 6 December 1943, plaintiff-appellee, as administratrix of the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque, tendered payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese War notes to defendant-appellant, who refused payment. By reason of such refusal, an action was brought and the cashier’s check was deposited in court. After trial,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Supreme Court, in its earlier decision affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that Raymundo Crystal’s redemption of the property acquired by private respondents was invalid as the check which petitioner used in paying the redemption price has been either dishonored or had become stale. ISSUE(S): Whether the conflicting circumstances of the check being dishonored and becoming stale affect the validity of the redemption sale. HELD: YES. For a check to be dishonored upon presentment on the one hand, and to be stale for not being presented at all in time on the other hand are incompatible developments that…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent entered into a Compromise Agreement to settle a land registration case involving four parcels of land, both agreeing to pay the other and the testate estate of Nicolai Drepin if either of them buys the property. Private respondent claimed to have bought the lots first on 15 January 1990 by delivering to the administrator of the Drepin estate two checks: one in favor of petitioner and the other in favor of the estate. Petitioner denied receiving the check, also contending that it bought the properties on 7 March 1990 by tendering a manager’s check each…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners were ordered by the trial court to pay private respondent in connection with the civil suit the latter filed against them. They delivered the total money judgement to the Deputy Sheriff. Private respondent refused to accept the proffered payment, insisting that she be paid from petitioner’s garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the trial court. ISSUE(S): Whether or not payment by means of cashier’s check is considered payment in legal tender. HELD: NO. A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt…

Keep Reading